7 ms·

The same logic applies to California. I know a wealthy guy who would save a million a year in taxes by moving to Nevada or Washington state, but he just... has

The same logic applies to California. I know a wealthy guy who would save a million a year in taxes by moving to Nevada or Washington state, but he just... hasn't. He's been talking about it for years, but no action. Because when it comes right down to it, it's too much disruption/change.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Massachusetts had an increase in millionaires move there after increasing their taxes. It's all bluster that the wealthy will leave. Where will they go? Talk is cheap.
- ghaff 1y ago
  In the specific case of Massachusetts, living in New Hampshire (no income tax or sales tax) instead is pretty practical for a lot of people. Doesn't help you that much if you commute to an MA employer but I know a lot of people who did commute in from NH and, these days, a lot of people who became officially remote workers in NH. Of course, there are lots of other reasons why out-of-staters might choose to move to MA.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    So you close the gap with policy as you find folks attempting to evade it. You'll always have leakage, it's inevitable, but not an excuse to not implement progressive tax policy on the highest levels of income and wealth. Puerto Rico has very favorable income tax treatment, but outside of some crypto bros, hasn't moved the HNW or high income migration needle, for example.
    - ghaff 1y ago
      I'm not sure why you consider living in NH evading anything. There are policies related to actually spending a lot of work time in other states, including MA. NH has established policies that generally work for them--and generally provide fewer services in exchange for lower taxes which seems like a valid choice to me.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        I only consider it evading if claiming residency in a low or no tax jurisdiction while still maintaining business activity or presence in the jurisdiction in scope for the taxes we're discussing. If you live in NH, work in NH, and have no nexus or economic activity derived from MA, carry on. NY sources taxes to the employer's office location in NY if a worker works remotely under certain circumstances, for example [1]. If geography can be used to shift or avoid tax exposure to income, I see no problem with using the law to prevent that, depending on the target outcome. My global income is subject to US federal taxes, regardless of my residency (although foreign exclusions apply under a reasonable income threshold, ~$120k/year, under the assumption I am paying taxes where I reside outside the US) [2]. [1] https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-convenience-rule-new-york-tax-implications-you-cant-ignore/ https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-conve... [2] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
        ghaff 1y ago
        At my former company, remote employees did increasingly have to track significant time in-person at other company locations--but if you're really working remotely.... MA did try to wrest taxes from NH-resident employees when they went remote en masse during COVID but I don't think they succeeded. (The official company HQ wasn't even in MA although they had a large facility and a lot of senior people there.) I'm not sure how you reasonably allocate state/local taxes other than by physical presence. Any reasonably large company has an economic nexus in many states and even countries.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
dfxm12 1y ago
Don't discount the possibility that living in that part of California is great and this guy is just virtue signaling.
- latexr 1y ago
  > virtue signaling I wouldn’t call moving to another place to pay less in taxes a virtue.
  - iwontberude 1y ago
    I complain about taxes to make my friends in Texas feel better about the raw deal they’ve got. I don’t mind paying high taxes personally. It’s more than virtue signaling, it’s about giving people something to be proud of.
    - jansan 1y ago
      > it’s about giving people something to be proud of. Are you talking about the very generous pensions for government officials?
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      Are you doing your friends a favor by pretending that the raw deal they're getting is great?
      - iwontberude 1y ago
        Yes because they can’t move ever
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Or maybe it’s just below bad enough to overcome the network effects of living in the Bay Area.
cassepipe 1y ago
Also, if you have millions, does an extra million make a difference ? A even bigger house ? Boat ? You can already have all the space you need, you can eat everywhere and go wherever you want for holidays... Is it worth the hassle ?
- bluecalm 1y ago
  Well for Norway specifically they have 1.1% wealth tax and humongous 37% capital gain tax (of course it's lower for real estate because Europeans like fighting stock investments). If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year. That's enough to fund Switzerland lifestyle let alone life in multiple other countries that levy 0 or close to 0 cap gain tax for long term gains. It's difference between comfortable retirement and having to work. Maybe it doesn't make much difference if you're very wealthy but for those who just managed to get financial independence it's huge.
  - iamacyborg 1y ago
    > If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year. That’s only on realised gains, surely? And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
    - bluecalm 1y ago
      Realizing every year vs realizing at the end produces about 1% annualized return difference with those rates over 10 years. It's sure significant but not huge. In practice you are likely to be somewhere in the middle. >>And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income. How is that relevant? You are investing money already heavily taxed as income before. Anyway, I am just pointing out it makes a significant difference for someone who struck a bit of gold and gained financial independence but is not yet rich.
p_ing 1y ago
The Starbucks CEO lives in California and flies to Washington state every week. He could move and supposedly save money (no income tax in WA, but there are some Capital Gains taxes).
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  The reason not to move to WA is the capital gains tax in WA is unpredictable. Someone else had explained that it’s actually against the state’s constitution but was upheld by the one sided state courts. And the legislators adjusted the rates upward once already even though it’s a very new tax. The state budget is in a bad shape and expected to get worse, so it’s likely they’ll keep increasing the tax every year.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    The stock market is growing, salaries aren't. Makes sense to tax the former and not the latter.
SilverElfin 1y ago
He may have found a clever way to structure his tax exposure.
ryandrake 1y ago
If there is anything as inevitable as death and taxes, it's "wealthy people complaining about taxes." Every year, the usual articles make the rounds about how all these wealthy people are moving out of California because they're sad about their taxes, and every year it doesn't significantly happen. I'm starting to think the "moving out of California" meme is just a media re-run that the wealthy get together and fund every year, and then it's back to sipping their wine in their mansions in Beverly Hills and Atherton.
- klipt 1y ago
  California actually has very low property taxes. Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
  - abirch 1y ago
    Property taxes usually pay for schools and there can be lines for CA schools.
    - jerlam 1y ago
      Depends on the area. In the wealthy SF Bay Area, the schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. SF is "the most childless major city". Schools are drastically underfunded due to Prop 13 and the state kicks in a lot of money to make up for the difference.
  - SilverbeardUnix 1y ago
    Land value tax would solve most problems in California.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      I wonder what percentage of people in California would go bankrupt if LVT were passed implemented there. Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.
jvalencia 1y ago
California refineries are set to shut down and it has huge implications for the state: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/energy-environment/california-gas-prices-oil-refineries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/energy-environme...
- klooney 1y ago
  They are irreplaceable assets that would probably cost north of a trillion dollars if someone tried to build them today, and the oil refining countries club is pretty exclusive. Wildly shortsighted from a big picture national capacity point of view.
gadders 1y ago
There are businesses (such as hedge funds) that seem to have left New York and Chicago and moved to Miami, though?
Spooky23 1y ago
I know a few people in New York like this. At the end of the day, home is home and Nevada is Nevada. The people who actually act on this stuff are usually not really wealthy, mostly just retirees finding themselves with a windfall of time and cash, who usually don’t math well.
jama211 1y ago
It’s also just probably a place he wants to live. Where you live and if you like it or not plays a huge role in life satisfaction. You couldn’t pay me to live in Nevada personally, not at double my income.
aeternum 1y ago
Another way to look at it is taxes aren't quite high enough yet to justify it. Many that are wealthy see the california tax as just another expense in return for good weather. The moving will absolutely happen, and it isn't all or nothing. If you're very wealthy the CA tax board already tracks the number of days you spend in CA so the choice will be to spend fewer.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Live in Nevada just to reduce my tax burden? Unless I was financially desperate (in which case my tax burden is probably low), then it's a hard no.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Massachusetts had an increase in millionaires move there after increasing their taxes. It's all bluster that the wealthy will leave. Where will they go? Talk is cheap.

ghaff 1y ago
In the specific case of Massachusetts, living in New Hampshire (no income tax or sales tax) instead is pretty practical for a lot of people. Doesn't help you that much if you commute to an MA employer but I know a lot of people who did commute in from NH and, these days, a lot of people who became officially remote workers in NH. Of course, there are lots of other reasons why out-of-staters might choose to move to MA.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  So you close the gap with policy as you find folks attempting to evade it. You'll always have leakage, it's inevitable, but not an excuse to not implement progressive tax policy on the highest levels of income and wealth. Puerto Rico has very favorable income tax treatment, but outside of some crypto bros, hasn't moved the HNW or high income migration needle, for example.
  - ghaff 1y ago
    I'm not sure why you consider living in NH evading anything. There are policies related to actually spending a lot of work time in other states, including MA. NH has established policies that generally work for them--and generally provide fewer services in exchange for lower taxes which seems like a valid choice to me.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      I only consider it evading if claiming residency in a low or no tax jurisdiction while still maintaining business activity or presence in the jurisdiction in scope for the taxes we're discussing. If you live in NH, work in NH, and have no nexus or economic activity derived from MA, carry on. NY sources taxes to the employer's office location in NY if a worker works remotely under certain circumstances, for example [1]. If geography can be used to shift or avoid tax exposure to income, I see no problem with using the law to prevent that, depending on the target outcome. My global income is subject to US federal taxes, regardless of my residency (although foreign exclusions apply under a reasonable income threshold, ~$120k/year, under the assumption I am paying taxes where I reside outside the US) [2]. [1] https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-convenience-rule-new-york-tax-implications-you-cant-ignore/ https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-conve... [2] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
      - ghaff 1y ago
        At my former company, remote employees did increasingly have to track significant time in-person at other company locations--but if you're really working remotely.... MA did try to wrest taxes from NH-resident employees when they went remote en masse during COVID but I don't think they succeeded. (The official company HQ wasn't even in MA although they had a large facility and a lot of senior people there.) I'm not sure how you reasonably allocate state/local taxes other than by physical presence. Any reasonably large company has an economic nexus in many states and even countries.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

dfxm12 1y ago

Don't discount the possibility that living in that part of California is great and this guy is just virtue signaling.

latexr 1y ago
> virtue signaling I wouldn’t call moving to another place to pay less in taxes a virtue.
- iwontberude 1y ago
  I complain about taxes to make my friends in Texas feel better about the raw deal they’ve got. I don’t mind paying high taxes personally. It’s more than virtue signaling, it’s about giving people something to be proud of.
  - jansan 1y ago
    > it’s about giving people something to be proud of. Are you talking about the very generous pensions for government officials?
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    Are you doing your friends a favor by pretending that the raw deal they're getting is great?
    - iwontberude 1y ago
      Yes because they can’t move ever
SilverElfin 1y ago
Or maybe it’s just below bad enough to overcome the network effects of living in the Bay Area.

cassepipe 1y ago

Also, if you have millions, does an extra million make a difference ? A even bigger house ? Boat ? You can already have all the space you need, you can eat everywhere and go wherever you want for holidays... Is it worth the hassle ?

bluecalm 1y ago
Well for Norway specifically they have 1.1% wealth tax and humongous 37% capital gain tax (of course it's lower for real estate because Europeans like fighting stock investments). If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year. That's enough to fund Switzerland lifestyle let alone life in multiple other countries that levy 0 or close to 0 cap gain tax for long term gains. It's difference between comfortable retirement and having to work. Maybe it doesn't make much difference if you're very wealthy but for those who just managed to get financial independence it's huge.
- iamacyborg 1y ago
  > If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year. That’s only on realised gains, surely? And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
  - bluecalm 1y ago
    Realizing every year vs realizing at the end produces about 1% annualized return difference with those rates over 10 years. It's sure significant but not huge. In practice you are likely to be somewhere in the middle. >>And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income. How is that relevant? You are investing money already heavily taxed as income before. Anyway, I am just pointing out it makes a significant difference for someone who struck a bit of gold and gained financial independence but is not yet rich.

p_ing 1y ago

The Starbucks CEO lives in California and flies to Washington state every week. He could move and supposedly save money (no income tax in WA, but there are some Capital Gains taxes).

SilverElfin 1y ago
The reason not to move to WA is the capital gains tax in WA is unpredictable. Someone else had explained that it’s actually against the state’s constitution but was upheld by the one sided state courts. And the legislators adjusted the rates upward once already even though it’s a very new tax. The state budget is in a bad shape and expected to get worse, so it’s likely they’ll keep increasing the tax every year.
- triceratops 1y ago
  The stock market is growing, salaries aren't. Makes sense to tax the former and not the latter.

SilverElfin 1y ago

He may have found a clever way to structure his tax exposure.

ryandrake 1y ago

If there is anything as inevitable as death and taxes, it's "wealthy people complaining about taxes." Every year, the usual articles make the rounds about how all these wealthy people are moving out of California because they're sad about their taxes, and every year it doesn't significantly happen. I'm starting to think the "moving out of California" meme is just a media re-run that the wealthy get together and fund every year, and then it's back to sipping their wine in their mansions in Beverly Hills and Atherton.

klipt 1y ago
California actually has very low property taxes. Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
- abirch 1y ago
  Property taxes usually pay for schools and there can be lines for CA schools.
  - jerlam 1y ago
    Depends on the area. In the wealthy SF Bay Area, the schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. SF is "the most childless major city". Schools are drastically underfunded due to Prop 13 and the state kicks in a lot of money to make up for the difference.
- SilverbeardUnix 1y ago
  Land value tax would solve most problems in California.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    I wonder what percentage of people in California would go bankrupt if LVT were passed implemented there. Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.

jvalencia 1y ago

California refineries are set to shut down and it has huge implications for the state: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/energy-environment/california-gas-prices-oil-refineries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/energy-environme...

klooney 1y ago
They are irreplaceable assets that would probably cost north of a trillion dollars if someone tried to build them today, and the oil refining countries club is pretty exclusive. Wildly shortsighted from a big picture national capacity point of view.

gadders 1y ago

There are businesses (such as hedge funds) that seem to have left New York and Chicago and moved to Miami, though?

Spooky23 1y ago

I know a few people in New York like this. At the end of the day, home is home and Nevada is Nevada. The people who actually act on this stuff are usually not really wealthy, mostly just retirees finding themselves with a windfall of time and cash, who usually don’t math well.

jama211 1y ago

It’s also just probably a place he wants to live. Where you live and if you like it or not plays a huge role in life satisfaction. You couldn’t pay me to live in Nevada personally, not at double my income.

aeternum 1y ago

Another way to look at it is taxes aren't quite high enough yet to justify it. Many that are wealthy see the california tax as just another expense in return for good weather. The moving will absolutely happen, and it isn't all or nothing. If you're very wealthy the CA tax board already tracks the number of days you spend in CA so the choice will be to spend fewer.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Live in Nevada just to reduce my tax burden? Unless I was financially desperate (in which case my tax burden is probably low), then it's a hard no.